Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5744374" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>@<u>Ar</u>eoDm, I largely agree with you on codification, but with one caveat. I think some rules codification is fine as long as the design is heavily explored, tested, and explained. The last is what I was aluding to in my previous post.</p><p> </p><p>For example, there is no <strong>inherent</strong> reason why the exact 3E skill list can't be a good choice. There are tradeoffs in any design, and here the authors were clearly going for some kind of compromise position between modeling complex characters versus balance (via class and cross-class skills, ranks). </p><p> </p><p>Likewise, there is no <strong>inherent</strong> reason why the 4E skill list can't be a good choice. Here, they are clearly going for some kind of split system, where crafting and other such activities are outside the scope of the system, while sneaking and analyzing magic are inside it.</p><p> </p><p>But I object to having a 3E skill list without explaining the compromise, when the presentation tries to pretend that craft and use rope are just as valuable as search or diplomacy. And I equally object to having the 4E skill list without explaining the split--and thus some broad guidelines (i.e. not codified) on how the DM should handle a character trying to craft something or use a rope.</p><p> </p><p>Now, in fairness, you can't explain everything you didn't do, and why. But you can explain where the lines were drawn, and why. Couple that with some guidelines for handling things outside the scope of the codified rules, and the why for the excluded stuff is fairly obvious.</p><p> </p><p>And I guess where I circle back to largely agreeing with your conclusion is that--absent such an explanation--people begin to suspect that there isn't one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> I know that is how I view the 3E skill system. Commentary on some of the pieces dropped in 4E would seem to indicate that others feel the same about 4E. </p><p> </p><p>In the end, <strong>good</strong> codification is less about ever increasing scope of rules and more about clarity on the boundaries. Sometimes, the good codification solution is to say, "the rule stops here," and then supplement with some advice on what to do when something outside that comes up.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5744374, member: 54877"] @[U]Ar[/U]eoDm, I largely agree with you on codification, but with one caveat. I think some rules codification is fine as long as the design is heavily explored, tested, and explained. The last is what I was aluding to in my previous post. For example, there is no [B]inherent[/B] reason why the exact 3E skill list can't be a good choice. There are tradeoffs in any design, and here the authors were clearly going for some kind of compromise position between modeling complex characters versus balance (via class and cross-class skills, ranks). Likewise, there is no [B]inherent[/B] reason why the 4E skill list can't be a good choice. Here, they are clearly going for some kind of split system, where crafting and other such activities are outside the scope of the system, while sneaking and analyzing magic are inside it. But I object to having a 3E skill list without explaining the compromise, when the presentation tries to pretend that craft and use rope are just as valuable as search or diplomacy. And I equally object to having the 4E skill list without explaining the split--and thus some broad guidelines (i.e. not codified) on how the DM should handle a character trying to craft something or use a rope. Now, in fairness, you can't explain everything you didn't do, and why. But you can explain where the lines were drawn, and why. Couple that with some guidelines for handling things outside the scope of the codified rules, and the why for the excluded stuff is fairly obvious. And I guess where I circle back to largely agreeing with your conclusion is that--absent such an explanation--people begin to suspect that there isn't one. :p I know that is how I view the 3E skill system. Commentary on some of the pieces dropped in 4E would seem to indicate that others feel the same about 4E. In the end, [B]good[/B] codification is less about ever increasing scope of rules and more about clarity on the boundaries. Sometimes, the good codification solution is to say, "the rule stops here," and then supplement with some advice on what to do when something outside that comes up. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules
Top